As I am reading this I keep coming back to the idea that - while some things are singular - like the Grand Canyon or the Intrepid Aircraft Carrier. When you are looking for information on those things, you are most likely looking for specific info about the single entity. You are not interested in how all canyons are created, you want to know how THIS canyon is created. In the example of a frog, that specific frog that you are looking at is singular, there is only exactly one of that single frog. In that context you are most concerned with the TYPE of frog and the information concerning that species, or maybe even amphibians in general - but you aren't looking to find out who that frog is and what it had for breakfast. This may have more to do with generating a hash for something, but I think there is a lot of overlap between the concept of labeling and identification with the concept of a "say"
I think of these issues as falling into the bucket of 'taxonomy', which is to say classification problems, but yeah totally agree that there is a difference between something unique ('the White House', 'Bono', 'my pet frog') and something not unique ('a can of coke', 'a troll doll', 'any old frog').
In some cases, it can be down to the question of 'could anyone, human or computer, distinguish between instances of the type?', but in others, it might have more to do with whether anyone would care to distinguish. On a certain level, the Grand Canyon is yet another hole in the ground, but it has more of an identity and significance than that to many. 'My pet frog' is just another frog to you, but to me, he's my best friend.
Which brings me back to subjectivity, to the whole thesis of the thing, which is that a system that assumes we can agree on something even as simple as what things are, much less what they are called, is hegemonic.
As I am reading this I keep coming back to the idea that - while some things are singular - like the Grand Canyon or the Intrepid Aircraft Carrier. When you are looking for information on those things, you are most likely looking for specific info about the single entity. You are not interested in how all canyons are created, you want to know how THIS canyon is created. In the example of a frog, that specific frog that you are looking at is singular, there is only exactly one of that single frog. In that context you are most concerned with the TYPE of frog and the information concerning that species, or maybe even amphibians in general - but you aren't looking to find out who that frog is and what it had for breakfast. This may have more to do with generating a hash for something, but I think there is a lot of overlap between the concept of labeling and identification with the concept of a "say"
I think of these issues as falling into the bucket of 'taxonomy', which is to say classification problems, but yeah totally agree that there is a difference between something unique ('the White House', 'Bono', 'my pet frog') and something not unique ('a can of coke', 'a troll doll', 'any old frog').
In some cases, it can be down to the question of 'could anyone, human or computer, distinguish between instances of the type?', but in others, it might have more to do with whether anyone would care to distinguish. On a certain level, the Grand Canyon is yet another hole in the ground, but it has more of an identity and significance than that to many. 'My pet frog' is just another frog to you, but to me, he's my best friend.
Which brings me back to subjectivity, to the whole thesis of the thing, which is that a system that assumes we can agree on something even as simple as what things are, much less what they are called, is hegemonic.